220 25486 <456f6164-031c-4ccc-ba25-39fcb5714b98@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: barry.revzin@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Relocation as a solution for the valueless variant problem? Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 96 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <456f6164-031c-4ccc-ba25-39fcb5714b98@isocpp.org> References: <4187538d-68fa-4582-ba26-f406479abe67@isocpp.org> <105d82bc-e1cf-4795-894c-112cd591c3af@isocpp.org> <4f31b957-05be-47cf-a1ca-03f33a9900c0@isocpp.org> <30181f63-7189-494d-9294-3f8b8759308f@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_516_776133569.1460148395268" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1460148400 12407 80.91.229.3 (8 Apr 2016 20:46:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 20:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: isocppgroup@denisbider.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCJJTG7CS4ARBLFRUC4AKGQECYCSLLY@isocpp.org Fri Apr 08 22:46:39 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f70.google.com ([209.85.192.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aodIc-0004zD-73 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:46:38 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j35sf127976004qge.1 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:46:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=ZXvv016m/6ar7Xtu6DAhcr2rA3zQWdE7DC6xj0ECaxk=; b=rI9Ft8BgLZ3XiPJrdJXa0Evhhy6yaQCxjMzfY9AvDqbOsEIImFKEndYcbGVoiCtBrF DR7TP/XMFOIclKS6lRPbvyaSwoGGgfcT1egU7wRo4QpG7JBGF2u6jD5JbdsDbzFMN5q+ cSL9DwTNaD6jIUzrLmUOz8VMG9xof5J6LLxqPdVvvoLfGE+8AxHnbxJQfbaTFiloeAiJ JAO9Sc0leDcZ2pL+p46oWh0N36NsWcrmh0iQXU1g+Lm5Sg6wmJ0RICYvnUi5vbQDEqxn BA8doGIWaIhDCgnJTKnFw0W7iiJM7bKRGvZJfFp7i5SImzfTtPlj6DlvHBtpQJvpQFVO lvcw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=ZXvv016m/6ar7Xtu6DAhcr2rA3zQWdE7DC6xj0ECaxk=; b=NNqKiWKQhQFjSOB5OJTmkKJgJDR129Wb2XzGGsOMA/nGdKIZRUAWptGVi9Sgh3Kifv gdvPMXAdWELCXe9gZoFNeOizWM9WR4EjzuwLbnLENjY60yu0Qv2xrZRmzdAycqTF+tgt wlVhPR7P2dvgMOEns1zM/wbDxxddyzmSTXn+ExxnNWzNhw5EQCuMN6SdCBHPih2oIGzC U2mvlRo25QhfDG8aEPFhY238kj/qc3nDTF+nDZVBC/uph2jPJby1Nhd9thkRD0O9WVeF zX977tbiXV0mPVEjQuYHGvwp+q0q3+Zh1bTIFPzoQ9uaNqyQ0V/QjB5QBrxaBfPq5X6v I3mw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=ZXvv016m/6ar7Xtu6DAhcr2rA3zQWdE7DC6xj0ECaxk=; b=FSY5zfZei+FfwlyMgp4DNZMvQuVPo65nhE8hZhY1+wc2Jezo47xv4HcCBgxCMqAoHR wY980CEg6iR90nbNpUimBt2bY+L+9wnnT/wL1PQ2Wd8R6iLpG04EZQoNHZ21USXljPNw 4/EPJi5S3BMwkQRuTmEgMsi2L9aSIfE3iduBEp4pUKsIqPxylUw9VgOePAtL8um5M86P +aTr+6Pi8884rgiXc/mPqws5OG0cl3UK6LOiWcU3NWk3/g7WHNhM68v/8dG+o9FvTEvd +eHR3uIwYUBRaJvdmvMg6W7SONMIRLua3B2P2IMP6bBxjF9Hvn2epH3VBQEVN7VAgVf+ BtHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIBDT5g3vbmiOQUqwMf1WwAPxLaPa4boEhxIT0996r48XJaEm7GaJtPKcuKXKgFoA== X-Received: by 10.13.223.7 with SMTP id i7mr7114954ywe.55.1460148396946; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.6.35 with SMTP id 35ls1315359iog.31.gmail; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.129.97 with SMTP id nv1mr141677igb.7.1460148395985; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:46:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Barry.Revzin@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:25486 Archived-At: ------=_Part_516_776133569.1460148395268 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_517_1178403751.1460148395269" ------=_Part_517_1178403751.1460148395269 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > If your relocation support can't even perform relocation in this most > simple of cases: > > How does it *not* handle that case? If std::list has a relocator, the > compiler can just call the relocator in this case: > > std::list SomeFunc() { > std::list lt = ... > ... > return lt; // no special syntax needed; compiler calls relocator >>list > } > > > What prevents the compiler from doing this? > As far as I can tell, your proposal doesn't say anything about this case, or about automatic objects at all. Your invocation section only addresses the use-case of "relocating" one pointer to another. You should take advantage of the feedback opportunity to improve your proposal. There's no need to be so defensive. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/456f6164-031c-4ccc-ba25-39fcb5714b98%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_517_1178403751.1460148395269 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> If = your relocation support can't even perform relocation in this most simp= le of cases:

How does it not handle t= hat case? If std::list has a relocator, the compiler can just call the relo= cator in this case:

  std::list<T> SomeFunc() {
    std::list<T> lt =3D ...
    ...
    return lt; // no special syntax needed; compiler calls relocator >>list<=
;T>
  }

What prevents the compiler from doin= g this?

As far as I can tell, y= our proposal doesn't say anything about this case, or about automatic o= bjects at all. Your invocation section only addresses the use-case of "= ;relocating" one pointer to another.=C2=A0

Yo= u should take advantage of the feedback opportunity to improve your proposa= l. There's no need to be so defensive.=C2=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/456f6164-031c-4ccc-ba25-39fcb5714b98= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_517_1178403751.1460148395269-- ------=_Part_516_776133569.1460148395268-- .